Profile Enrichment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating that each enrichment flag controls one data source and bills separately, warning about cost implications and independent data sources. This is useful behavioral information not present in the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence explains what the tool does, and the second provides an important billing/behavioral note. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich schema (100% parameter coverage), the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description is complete. It covers the core purpose, the single-profile scope, and the billing behavior. Nothing critical is omitted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that each enrichment flag maps to a distinct data source and incurs separate billing, which is not evident from individual parameter descriptions. It also reinforces that the profile_identifier is the entry point.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool enriches a single professional profile with specific data types (detailed profile data, work email, personal email, GitHub profile). It uses a specific verb ('enrich') and resource ('single professional profile'), and the mention of 'single' differentiates it from search tools and sibling enrich_company.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use: when you have a specific profile identifier and want to enrich it. The phrase 'single professional profile' provides clear context, and the sibling enrich_company makes the distinction obvious. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives like search_people for discovery.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.